▶ Your Answer :
In this set of material, both the reading passage and the lecture deal with the topic of the origin of forts built with stones that are vitrified. Regarding this issue, the lecturer argues that the reading passage’s explanations are not confirmed. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that the origin of these forts can be supported by various assertions.
To begin with, the lecturer goes on to say that signal fires do not match to prove vitrified stones. Because signal fires affect only few areas, but entire forts are vitrified. This counters the reading passages’s viewpoint that the signal fires are attribute to vitrification. Signal fires retain constant heat, which leads to vitrified surfaces. In addition, the proper location for signal fires are upper parts of the walls that vitrified stones are located in.
Moreover, the lecturer asserts that lightning is problematic to support the origin of the forts. Because dozens strikes required for extensive vitrification, and walls cracked is normal phenomenon tacking into account its old formation period.
This refutes the reading passage’s claim that the lightning strike may transform rock into a vitrified substance, and constant strike might led to the large sections of vitrification. Also, lightning is contribute to crack rocks and break of large chunks.
Lastly, the lecturer mentions that the forts are highly unlikely to use volcanic rock. Because there were no volcanic activity near construction at that time, and people might have used local materials to built forts. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that the ancient residence might have built their forts with volcanic rock that caused melt and fuse together and became vitrified. |